Nikon AF-S Nikkor 18-35mm f/3.5-4.5G ED on D7000 and D800

The 18-35mm f/3.5-54.5G is no slouch on the DX format D7000, and comprehensively outperforms the 18-55mm kit zoom. But as expected it really comes into its own in front of the larger FX sensor in the D800.

The new 18-35mm is clearly better than its predecessor, with much improved sharpness at larger apertures and reduced chromatic aberration. However stop down F8 or F11 - common working apertures for full frame wideangles - and the sharpness advantage more-or-less disappears.

The 18-35mm f/3.5-4.5G is at least a match for the more expensive 16-35mm f/4G in terms of sharpness, across their shared range. Chromatic aberration and vignetting characteristics are broadly similar too, but while the 18-35mm shows varying amounts of barrel distortion, the 16-35mm VR veers between barrel and pincushion.

The 14-24mm f/2.8G is pretty much the benchmark for wide angle zooms. It's very different to the 18-35mm f/3.5-3.4G, of course, in terms of focal length range, aperture and price, but what's impressive here is how closely the budget lens matches it for sharpness when compared like-for-like.

Third party competition: compared to Tokina AT-X 16-28mm f/2.8 Pro FX

The only really modern third party full frame wide zoom is the Tokina AT-X 16-28mm f/2.8 Pro FX, but again this is a very different lens in terms of capabilities and price. The Tokina struggles a bit with edge sharpness, especially wide open, but stop both lenses down to F5.6 and and the differences are much smaller.

Full lens test results on DxOMark

Our lens test data is produced in collaboration with DxOMark. Click the links below to explore the full lens test data on the DxOMark website.

Comments

Interesting discussion in the light of my intended switch to FF (D600). On my old DX I have the rather budget 10-20 Sigma. I use it a lot!. Of course it is no match for the 14-24 on FF, but it makes me wonder. my personal Lightroom statistics show that most of my images with the Sigma were taken between 10mm and 12mm @f/8 or f/11, with just a few at the long end. Even worse, when I look at most of the images, impact would not have suffered if taken with even slightly less WA

I'm wondering if people owning the 14-24 do indeed shoot more at the short end (14-17) and does it justify the price difference at all. (e.g. would the shot have been missed with the 18-35?)

You might rent a 14-24mm to appreciate the experience. The difference between 14mm and 18mm is huge. But if you do go with a 14-24mm, you'll likely need a midrange zoom. I live with a gap between 35mm and 50mm, but YMMV.

Nicely stated, Denis :) A lot of people don't realise that the difference in wide-angle lenses if much greater than with mid-range and tele-zooms :) Also, I agree, totally, about the wider zoom range (18-35 vs ???) which reduces lens changing and all, that, that can lead to :)

I recently changed to FF and 'cos I use primes I've seen a great difference, on my DX I used a Sigma 14mm f2.8 HSM which gave an equiv view of 21mm. On my D600 it's w-i-d-e and I use it a lot but less than when used on DX.

Now thinking I'll get the Nikkor 20mm f2.8 off eBay to compensate!

Maybe the right choice is this18-35, but I like primes as they are so much more compact and much lighter so I take my cam with me more.

OK, I have to change lenses but far less than you might imagine......and 'get dust on the sensor?'.......hey, I've got a D600, what's a little bit more dust to good friends! :)

welll... Denis, that was not my question. Indeed I appreciate the wider FOV of 14 vs 18 mm on FF (would be 9.3 vs 12 on DX)But that was exactly my observation. Although I DO have the 10mm on DX option, my Lighroom statistics say that I mostly!!!! shoot it on indeed 10-12mm but the images not always reflect the necessity of using such wide angle. In that light is the 14-24 pricetag justified compared to the 18-35 with respect to your pictures. Anyway for midrange the 24-85 or 24-120 is nice.

For the same number of megapixels, FX pixels have twice the area (1.5x the diagonal), so the same lens blur will show less on FX. The advantage of DX is that you use the sweet spot of the lens (the center). So YMMV depending on the lens (center vs corner sharpness)

I'm happy with the 14-24mm for what it does and the 18-35mm for the long end, polarized shots, walk-around. It would be more convenient if the 16-35mm could cover all of my needs, but it falls short in several areas. Always happy when DXO does not tell me I made a bad choice.

Very compact, non-VR, less extreme range, variable aperture, quite a bit cheaper than 16-35/4 VR, less distortions at the wide end, interesting addition to the excellent uw-wa Nikon set. I’ve not looked at the lens myself yet. But samples posted on the forums, quite a few on the lens forum, looked often promising. Some of them excellent actually. Useful design. And a great option for many.

Very nice performance from the new 18-35 3.5-4.5G. And it couldn't come at a better time as I've recently changed by Tokina 16-28 2.8 for the 28 1.8G. And as good as the 28 1.8G is, it's not all that wide.

Enter the new 18-3G. The slower max aperture is not such a big deal for landscape photography.

Money no object I'd simply add the 14-24 2.8G, but like the Tokina lens I just got rid of, it's large, heavy, pricey and doesn't take filters. The 18-35G seems to be a good compromise on size/weight, price and performance. Thanks guys.